IRS Commits Tax Evasion with Immunity

On May 6th the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration  ("TIGTA" or internal government watchdog over the IRS) issued a scathing report that found, from 2003 through 2013, 1,580 IRS employees committed willful tax violations.   These cases included willful overstatement of expenses, claiming the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit without buying a home, and repeated failure to timely file required Federal tax returns.  

It should be noted that a willful act is the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty (timely filing of a tax return or accurate reporting of a tax obligation).   A willful violation of tax law is a criminal act.  This means jail time to the average person, but not IRS employees according to the TIGTA report.   

Current law requires that the IRS terminate employees who are found to have willfully violated tax law.  However, the law also gives the IRS Commissioner the sole authority to mitigate cases to a lesser penalty.  The TIGTA report disclosed that the IRS Commissioner exercised his sole authority on numerous occasions to mitigate termination of IRS employees who committed tax evasion.  

Although the IRS concluded their own employees committed criminal tax acts, 61 percent of these criminal tax evaders continue to work for the IRS.   In fact, some employees received promotions and awards within one year after their willful tax noncompliance cases were closed. The report does not disclose that any of these criminals were referred for prosecution.  The IRS Commissioner made sure these employees, some whom had significant and sometimes repeated tax noncompliance issues, and a history of other conduct issues, kept their positions and remained out of the media spotlight.   

As a reformed federal prosecutor and current tax defense attorney, I personally find it alarming that the IRS can prosecute every day citizens for the same exact acts it allows its own employees to commit with carte blanche immunity.  This leaves a curiously strong bad taste.  

If you need assistance concerning taxes or an IRS investigation, do not hesitate to contact a tax lawyer in Orange County.   According to the TIGTA report only IRS employees - not everyone else - are immune to the efforts being taken by the US government.  The Orange County Tax Attorneys at Wilson Tax Law Group have experience in federal tax prosecutions and IRS and state tax matters. You can reach the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430.

IRS Commits Tax Evasion with Immunity

On May 6th the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration  ("TIGTA" or internal government watchdog over the IRS) issued a scathing report that found, from 2003 through 2013, 1,580 IRS employees committed willful tax violations.   These cases included willful overstatement of expenses, claiming the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit without buying a home, and repeated failure to timely file required Federal tax returns.  

It should be noted that a willful act is the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty (timely filing of a tax return or accurate reporting of a tax obligation).   A willful violation of tax law is a criminal act.  This means jail time to the average person, but not IRS employees according to the TIGTA report.   

Current law requires that the IRS terminate employees who are found to have willfully violated tax law.  However, the law also gives the IRS Commissioner the sole authority to mitigate cases to a lesser penalty.  The TIGTA report disclosed that the IRS Commissioner exercised his sole authority on numerous occasions to mitigate termination of IRS employees who committed tax evasion.  

Although the IRS concluded their own employees committed criminal tax acts, 61 percent of these criminal tax evaders continue to work for the IRS.   In fact, some employees received promotions and awards within one year after their willful tax noncompliance cases were closed. The report does not disclose that any of these criminals were referred for prosecution.  The IRS Commissioner made sure these employees, some whom had significant and sometimes repeated tax noncompliance issues, and a history of other conduct issues, kept their positions and remained out of the media spotlight.   

As a reformed federal prosecutor and current tax defense attorney, I personally find it alarming that the IRS can prosecute every day citizens for the same exact acts it allows its own employees to commit with carte blanche immunity.  This leaves a curiously strong bad taste.  

If you need assistance concerning taxes or an IRS investigation, do not hesitate to contact a tax lawyer in Orange County.   According to the TIGTA report only IRS employees - not everyone else - are immune to the efforts being taken by the US government.  The Orange County Tax Attorneys at Wilson Tax Law Group have experience in federal tax prosecutions and IRS and state tax matters. You can reach the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430.

Be Careful Claiming Your Charitable Deduction for 2014

The IRS loves to audit people who claim charitable deductions.  The reason is that there are very strict record-keeping rules when it comes to charitable deductions and most people are not aware of them so the IRS usually finds a way to disallow the deduction, which of course triggers increased taxes, penalties and interest.  Do not let this happen to you.

 Generally, to claim a charitable contribution deduction for gifts of $250 or more in cash or property to charity, donors must get a written acknowledgment from the charity.  This is usually not a big deal.  For donations of property, the acknowledgment must include, among other things, a description of the items contributed.  Typically the place you donate the property gives you a blank receipt.  So you need to fill it out and make sure you list all the items donate.  You also need to determine the value of the property contributed if it is not cash, which sometimes can cause problems if the amount determined is incorrect.

 The law also requires that taxpayers have all acknowledgments in hand beforefiling their tax return.   The IRS does not like it when you go back to the charity to get an acknowledgment.  That said I have done this in the past and have been able to substantiate the deduction to the IRS' satisfaction.  However, I do not recommend doing this if you can avoid it. 

 Only taxpayers who itemize their deductions can claim gifts to charity.  You should also know there are special reporting requirements that apply to vehicle donations and taxpayers wishing to claim these donations must attach any required documents to their return. For example, Form 1098-C or a similar statement, must be provided to the donor by the organization and attached to the return. Furthermore, the deduction for a car, boat or airplane donated to charity is usually limited to the gross proceeds from its sale. This rule applies if the claimed value is more than $500.

 Additionally, there are a number of bogus groups masquerading as a charitable organization to attract donations from unsuspecting contributors.  This is one of the top 12 abuses listed by the IRS for 2015.  You should take a few extra minutes to ensure your hard-earned money or property goes to legitimate and currently eligible charity. 

 Be wary of charities with names that are similar to familiar or nationally known organizations. Some phony charities use names or websites that sound or look like those of respected, legitimate organizations.  Also, don’t give out personal financial information, such as Social Security numbers or passwords to anyone who solicits a contribution from you. Scam artists may use this information to steal your identity and money. People use credit card numbers to make legitimate donations but please be very careful when you are speaking with someone who called you.

 Also, don’t give or send cash. For security and tax record purposes, contribute by check or credit card or another way that provides documentation of the gift.

 If you have questions or concerns about a charitable deduction, or would like representation that includes advising you on the tax aspects of business transactions and how they should be reported on tax return to avoid tax problems or place you in the best position on the occasion you are contacted by the IRS or the state tax authorities, please contact the Wilson Tax Law Group. 

 To schedule an initial consultation, please contact our Orange County tax lawyers at (949) 397-2292 or use our online contact form.

Be Careful Claiming Your Charitable Deduction for 2014

The IRS loves to audit people who claim charitable deductions.  The reason is that there are very strict record-keeping rules when it comes to charitable deductions and most people are not aware of them so the IRS usually finds a way to disallow the deduction, which of course triggers increased taxes, penalties and interest.  Do not let this happen to you.

 Generally, to claim a charitable contribution deduction for gifts of $250 or more in cash or property to charity, donors must get a written acknowledgment from the charity.  This is usually not a big deal.  For donations of property, the acknowledgment must include, among other things, a description of the items contributed.  Typically the place you donate the property gives you a blank receipt.  So you need to fill it out and make sure you list all the items donate.  You also need to determine the value of the property contributed if it is not cash, which sometimes can cause problems if the amount determined is incorrect.

 The law also requires that taxpayers have all acknowledgments in hand before filing their tax return.   The IRS does not like it when you go back to the charity to get an acknowledgment.  That said I have done this in the past and have been able to substantiate the deduction to the IRS' satisfaction.  However, I do not recommend doing this if you can avoid it. 

 Only taxpayers who itemize their deductions can claim gifts to charity.  You should also know there are special reporting requirements that apply to vehicle donations and taxpayers wishing to claim these donations must attach any required documents to their return. For example, Form 1098-C or a similar statement, must be provided to the donor by the organization and attached to the return. Furthermore, the deduction for a car, boat or airplane donated to charity is usually limited to the gross proceeds from its sale. This rule applies if the claimed value is more than $500.

 Additionally, there are a number of bogus groups masquerading as a charitable organization to attract donations from unsuspecting contributors.  This is one of the top 12 abuses listed by the IRS for 2015.  You should take a few extra minutes to ensure your hard-earned money or property goes to legitimate and currently eligible charity. 

 Be wary of charities with names that are similar to familiar or nationally known organizations. Some phony charities use names or websites that sound or look like those of respected, legitimate organizations.  Also, don’t give out personal financial information, such as Social Security numbers or passwords to anyone who solicits a contribution from you. Scam artists may use this information to steal your identity and money. People use credit card numbers to make legitimate donations but please be very careful when you are speaking with someone who called you.

 Also, don’t give or send cash. For security and tax record purposes, contribute by check or credit card or another way that provides documentation of the gift.

 If you have questions or concerns about a charitable deduction, or would like representation that includes advising you on the tax aspects of business transactions and how they should be reported on tax return to avoid tax problems or place you in the best position on the occasion you are contacted by the IRS or the state tax authorities, please contact the Wilson Tax Law Group. 

 To schedule an initial consultation, please contact our Orange County tax lawyers at (949) 397-2292 or use our online contact form.

California Jury Aquits Banker of Conspiracy to Defraud Using Offshore Bank Accounts

On Halloween day, after just four hours of deliberation, a retired senior vice president at Israeli-based Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. (MZTF) was acquitted in Los Angeles federal court on charges he helped U.S. customers conceal their assets from the Internal Revenue Service.  

Shokrollah Baravarian, 82, was acquitted of charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and helping Mizrahi clients prepare false tax returns. Prosecutors claimed Baravarian helped clients who opened accounts in Israel, didn’t declare them to the IRS and accessed money through loans from the Los Angeles branch.  The jury was not persuaded.  

The U.S. has been campaigning heavily to curtail offshore tax evasion. The IRS, through the US Department of Justice, has charged more than 70 taxpayers and three dozen offshore bankers, lawyers and advisers in offshore tax evasions schemes.  More than 45,000 Americans have avoided criminal prosecution by voluntarily disclosing their offshore accounts to the IRS, paying $6.5 billion in taxes, penalties and interest.   The Baravarian investigation is another blow to the US Government in its war against alleged offshore tax evasion.
 
In January, a U.S. judge in Chicago sentenced H. Ty Warner, the billionaire founder of toymaker Ty Inc. and Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts, to probation. He pleaded guilty to evading almost $5.6 million in taxes on more than $24.4 million in income from accounts with as much as $107 million. Warner faced 46 to 57 months in prison. Prosecutors are appealing.

Last year, a 79-year-old widow, Mary Estelle Curran, who evaded taxes through undeclared Swiss accounts with $43 million was sentenced to less than a minute of probation from a judge who scolded prosecutors.

On November 3, 2014,  after just 90 minutes of deliberation, federal jurors in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, found former UBS AG (UBSN) banker Raoul Weil not guilty of conspiring tohelp as many as 17,000 U.S. taxpayers hide $20 billion from the IRS.  He was arrested last year in Bologna, Italy, and waived extradition.  Weil faced five years in prison and is now a free man.

The US government is aggressively pursuing individuals and bankers for offshore tax evasion.  If you have offshore bank accounts or have been involved in a offshore vehicle, it is extremely important that you seek competent tax counsel who can help you with these matters.  Competent tax counsel can mean the difference between jail and no jail.    The Wilson Tax Law Group is composed exclusively of former IRS Attorneys and Federal Tax Prosecutors.   Our prosecution and IRS background uniquely situates us in the area of criminal tax defense.  Please contact our Newport Beach Office at 949-397-2292 for a consultation.

 wilsontaxlaw.com

California Jury Aquits Banker of Conspiracy to Defraud Using Offshore Bank Accounts

On Halloween day, after just four hours of deliberation, a retired senior vice president at Israeli-based Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Ltd. (MZTF) was acquitted in Los Angeles federal court on charges he helped U.S. customers conceal their assets from the Internal Revenue Service.  

Shokrollah Baravarian, 82, was acquitted of charges of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and helping Mizrahi clients prepare false tax returns. Prosecutors claimed Baravarian helped clients who opened accounts in Israel, didn’t declare them to the IRS and accessed money through loans from the Los Angeles branch.  The jury was not persuaded.  

The U.S. has been campaigning heavily to curtail offshore tax evasion. The IRS, through the US Department of Justice, has charged more than 70 taxpayers and three dozen offshore bankers, lawyers and advisers in offshore tax evasions schemes.  More than 45,000 Americans have avoided criminal prosecution by voluntarily disclosing their offshore accounts to the IRS, paying $6.5 billion in taxes, penalties and interest.   The Baravarian investigation is another blow to the US Government in its war against alleged offshore tax evasion.
 
In January, a U.S. judge in Chicago sentenced H. Ty Warner, the billionaire founder of toymaker Ty Inc. and Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts, to probation. He pleaded guilty to evading almost $5.6 million in taxes on more than $24.4 million in income from accounts with as much as $107 million. Warner faced 46 to 57 months in prison. Prosecutors are appealing.

Last year, a 79-year-old widow, Mary Estelle Curran, who evaded taxes through undeclared Swiss accounts with $43 million was sentenced to less than a minute of probation from a judge who scolded prosecutors.

On November 3, 2014,  after just 90 minutes of deliberation, federal jurors in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, found former UBS AG (UBSN) banker Raoul Weil not guilty of conspiring to help as many as 17,000 U.S. taxpayers hide $20 billion from the IRS.  He was arrested last year in Bologna, Italy, and waived extradition.  Weil faced five years in prison and is now a free man.

The US government is aggressively pursuing individuals and bankers for offshore tax evasion.  If you have offshore bank accounts or have been involved in a offshore vehicle, it is extremely important that you seek competent tax counsel who can help you with these matters.  Competent tax counsel can mean the difference between jail and no jail.    The Wilson Tax Law Group is composed exclusively of former IRS Attorneys and Federal Tax Prosecutors.   Our prosecution and IRS background uniquely situates us in the area of criminal tax defense.  Please contact our Newport Beach Office at 949-397-2292 for a consultation.

 wilsontaxlaw.com

Taxpayer Prevails against the Franchise Tax Board after Ex-Spouse Attempts to Destroy her Tax Relief Case

Just like the IRS, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) also has a program to allow one spouse to be relieved of existing joint liabilities if that spouse can prove that she or he meets the requirements for "innocent spouse" relief. These types of cases whether at the IRS or FTB level can be hotly contested and the other ex-spouse can intervene and attempt to impede the determination to relieve the liability for the claimant spouse. In a recent case, McShea, California State Board of Equalization, No. 509192, April 22, 2014, released August 2014, a taxpayer demonstrated that the FTB erred in its denial of her request for innocent spouse relief from unpaid California personal income tax liabilities.

In the McShea case, the FTB initially granted the taxpayer complete equitable relief for 1993 and partial equitable relief for 1994. However, the taxpayer’s ex-husband appealed the grant of relief, arguing that they had agreed to share the tax liabilities for the tax years at issue. As a result, the FTB changed its position, determining that it had erroneously granted equitable relief.

In reviewing the case, the Board of Equalization determined that the following factors weighed in favor of reversing the FTB’s proposed action on appeal:

• the taxpayer’s marital status (divorced for at least 12 months prior to the date the innocent spouse determination was being made);

• the taxpayer’s compliance with the income tax laws in the years following the years for which relief was requested;

• the presence of severe domestic abuse during the taxpayer’s years of marriage;

• and the taxpayer’s lack of knowledge or reason to know, when she was ordered by a judge to sign the 1993 and 1994 joint returns in 2007, that her ex-
husband would not or could not pay the tax liabilities.

The FTB argued that the taxpayer could have clarified at the couple’s 2007 court hearing whether her ex-husband intended to remit payment for the 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities on or about the time he filed the 1993 and 1994 returns. However, the State Board of Equalization determined that due to the years of abuse and the taxpayer’s belief that she needed to sign the returns in order to receive the child support her ex-husband owed, the taxpayer was afraid to confront her ex-husband and the judge concerning the payment of the 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities at the time she signed the returns and, therefore, she did not know or have reason to know that her ex-husband would not or could not pay the tax liabilities.

This is a great result for the innocent spouse, especially in a situation where the ex-spouse intervened and attempted to persuade the tax authorities not to grant the innocent spouse relief. It is extremely important that when making a claim for innocent spouse that all the factors are considered and that the claimant is prepared to get into a heated battle with the ex-spouse. Sometimes the other ex-spouse does not intervene and sometimes the ex-spouse intervenes but only to help the innocent spouse obtain the relief being requested. So you really need to vet the situation prior to making the claim so that you are prepared to deal with all the possible scenarios. Innocent spouse relief is a powerful tool that can be used to abate the existing tax liabilities, thus in the appropriate circumstances, it should not be overlooked.

If you have questions or want to pursue this type of claim, you can contact the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430. Our attorneys are experts in innocent spouse relief and can assist or advise you regarding these types of matters.

Taxpayer Prevails against the Franchise Tax Board after Ex-Spouse Attempts to Destroy her Tax Relief Case

Just like the IRS, the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) also has a program to allow one spouse to be relieved of existing joint liabilities if that spouse can prove that she or he meets the requirements for "innocent spouse" relief. These types of cases whether at the IRS or FTB level can be hotly contested and the other ex-spouse can intervene and attempt to impede the determination to relieve the liability for the claimant spouse. In a recent case, McShea, California State Board of Equalization, No. 509192, April 22, 2014, released August 2014, a taxpayer demonstrated that the FTB erred in its denial of her request for innocent spouse relief from unpaid California personal income tax liabilities.

In the McShea case, the FTB initially granted the taxpayer complete equitable relief for 1993 and partial equitable relief for 1994. However, the taxpayer’s ex-husband appealed the grant of relief, arguing that they had agreed to share the tax liabilities for the tax years at issue. As a result, the FTB changed its position, determining that it had erroneously granted equitable relief.

In reviewing the case, the Board of Equalization determined that the following factors weighed in favor of reversing the FTB’s proposed action on appeal:

• the taxpayer’s marital status (divorced for at least 12 months prior to the date the innocent spouse determination was being made);

• the taxpayer’s compliance with the income tax laws in the years following the years for which relief was requested;

• the presence of severe domestic abuse during the taxpayer’s years of marriage;

• and the taxpayer’s lack of knowledge or reason to know, when she was ordered by a judge to sign the 1993 and 1994 joint returns in 2007, that her ex-
husband would not or could not pay the tax liabilities.

The FTB argued that the taxpayer could have clarified at the couple’s 2007 court hearing whether her ex-husband intended to remit payment for the 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities on or about the time he filed the 1993 and 1994 returns. However, the State Board of Equalization determined that due to the years of abuse and the taxpayer’s belief that she needed to sign the returns in order to receive the child support her ex-husband owed, the taxpayer was afraid to confront her ex-husband and the judge concerning the payment of the 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities at the time she signed the returns and, therefore, she did not know or have reason to know that her ex-husband would not or could not pay the tax liabilities.

This is a great result for the innocent spouse, especially in a situation where the ex-spouse intervened and attempted to persuade the tax authorities not to grant the innocent spouse relief. It is extremely important that when making a claim for innocent spouse that all the factors are considered and that the claimant is prepared to get into a heated battle with the ex-spouse. Sometimes the other ex-spouse does not intervene and sometimes the ex-spouse intervenes but only to help the innocent spouse obtain the relief being requested. So you really need to vet the situation prior to making the claim so that you are prepared to deal with all the possible scenarios. Innocent spouse relief is a powerful tool that can be used to abate the existing tax liabilities, thus in the appropriate circumstances, it should not be overlooked.

If you have questions or want to pursue this type of claim, you can contact the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430. Our attorneys are experts in innocent spouse relief and can assist or advise you regarding these types of matters.

IRS Phone Scams Run Rampant - Tips to Keep Your Client Protected

The IRS has been issuing a number of alerts about telephone scams. I have personally had at least two clients who have been targeted by these phone scammers. Lucky for them I was able to warn them not to call them back and the phone scammers were unable to defraud my clients. Unfortunately, thousands and thousands of other people across the US have been the victims of these extremely slick phone scammers. They have defrauded people out of millions of dollars.

How it works is the scammers call people on their cell phone and home phones claiming to be employees of the IRS. They often demand money to pay taxes and threaten people by saying if you don't immediately pay they are going to seize their assets or have them arrested. Some may try to con you by saying that you're due a refund. The refund is a fake lure so you'll give them your banking or other private financial information. Don't be fooled by these scammers.

I have personally talked to the scammers after they have reached out to my clients. They have real phone numbers and when you call them back they answer as if they were working for the IRS. They can sound convincing when you talk with them because they may even know a lot about you.

They may alter the caller ID to make it look like the IRS is calling. They use fake names and bogus IRS badge numbers. If you don't answer, they often leave an “urgent” callback request.

The IRS has created a list of five things the scammers often do but the IRS will not do. So if any one of these five things occurs it is a sign that it is a scam.

The IRS will never:

1. Call you about taxes you owe without first mailing you an official notice.

You always receive a notice assuming the IRS has your current mailing address. You should make sure your current address is on file with the IRS if for no other reason so you know if the phone call is a scam.


2. Demand that you pay taxes without giving you the chance to question or appeal the amount they say you owe.

3. Require you to use a certain payment method for your taxes, such as a prepaid debit card.

4. Ask for credit or debit card numbers over the phone.

5. Threaten to bring in local police or other law-enforcement to have you arrested for not paying.

So if you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS and asking for money, here's what to do:

•If you know you owe taxes or think you might owe, call the IRS at 800-829-1040 to talk about payment options. You also may be able to set up a payment plan online at IRS.gov. You can also contact your tax professional and have them look into this for you.

•If you know you don't owe taxes or have no reason to believe that you do, report the incident to TIGTA at 1.800.366.4484 or at www.tigta.gov. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was established under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 to provide independent oversight of IRS activities.


•If phone scammers target you, also contact the Federal Trade Commission at FTC.gov. Use their “ FTC Complaint Assistant ” to report the scam. Add “IRS Telephone Scam” to the comments of your complaint.

The IRS currently does not use unsolicited email, text messages or any social media to discuss your personal tax issues. If you would like more information on reporting tax scams, or if you have been the victim of IRS identify theft or believe that your information may have been compromised, you can contact the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430. At Wilson Tax Law our attorneys have experience in these matters and can assist to get you through this process.

IRS Phone Scams Run Rampant - Tips to Keep Your Client Protected

The IRS has been issuing a number of alerts about telephone scams. I have personally had at least two clients who have been targeted by these phone scammers. Lucky for them I was able to warn them not to call them back and the phone scammers were unable to defraud my clients. Unfortunately, thousands and thousands of other people across the US have been the victims of these extremely slick phone scammers. They have defrauded people out of millions of dollars.

How it works is the scammers call people on their cell phone and home phones claiming to be employees of the IRS. They often demand money to pay taxes and threaten people by saying if you don't immediately pay they are going to seize their assets or have them arrested. Some may try to con you by saying that you're due a refund. The refund is a fake lure so you'll give them your banking or other private financial information. Don't be fooled by these scammers.

I have personally talked to the scammers after they have reached out to my clients. They have real phone numbers and when you call them back they answer as if they were working for the IRS. They can sound convincing when you talk with them because they may even know a lot about you.

They may alter the caller ID to make it look like the IRS is calling. They use fake names and bogus IRS badge numbers. If you don't answer, they often leave an “urgent” callback request.

The IRS has created a list of five things the scammers often do but the IRS will not do. So if any one of these five things occurs it is a sign that it is a scam.

The IRS will never:

1. Call you about taxes you owe without first mailing you an official notice.

You always receive a notice assuming the IRS has your current mailing address. You should make sure your current address is on file with the IRS if for no other reason so you know if the phone call is a scam.


2. Demand that you pay taxes without giving you the chance to question or appeal the amount they say you owe.

3. Require you to use a certain payment method for your taxes, such as a prepaid debit card.

4. Ask for credit or debit card numbers over the phone.

5. Threaten to bring in local police or other law-enforcement to have you arrested for not paying.

So if you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS and asking for money, here's what to do:

•If you know you owe taxes or think you might owe, call the IRS at 800-829-1040 to talk about payment options. You also may be able to set up a payment plan online at IRS.gov. You can also contact your tax professional and have them look into this for you.

•If you know you don't owe taxes or have no reason to believe that you do, report the incident to TIGTA at 1.800.366.4484 or at www.tigta.gov. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was established under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 to provide independent oversight of IRS activities.


•If phone scammers target you, also contact the Federal Trade Commission at FTC.gov. Use their “ FTC Complaint Assistant ” to report the scam. Add “IRS Telephone Scam” to the comments of your complaint.

The IRS currently does not use unsolicited email, text messages or any social media to discuss your personal tax issues. If you would like more information on reporting tax scams, or if you have been the victim of IRS identify theft or believe that your information may have been compromised, you can contact the Wilson Tax Law Group at 714-463-4430. At Wilson Tax Law our attorneys have experience in these matters and can assist to get you through this process.

IRS Suffers Defeat in Appeals Court as Jury's Finding of Return Preparer Penalty Reversed

The IRS suffered a major defeat last week in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Carlson v. United States, Case No. 12-13736 (June 13, 2014), as the appellate court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part a decision from a Florida district court holding a tax preparer liable for penalties under Code Section 6701.  The eleventh circuit held that the burden of proof was not the usual minimum of a "preponderance of the evidence" (sometimes described as "more likely than not") but the higher "clear and convincing evidence" usually applied in civil fraud cases.  (Note: the clear/convincing standard is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.)  Appellant, Frances Carlson, was a return preparer for Jackson Hewitt tax services.

Section 6701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C., provides for a penalty to be imposed on any person:

(1) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document,

(2) who knows (or has reason to believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws, and

(3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person.

Under IRS Section 6701(b), the penalty is $1000 for essentially every return that the tax preparer knew was claiming a false understatement of tax, but the penalty is limited to one imposition for each year involving a particular taxpayer. For example, if a return preparer prepares knowingly false returns for Jimmy in 2010, 2011, and 2012,  and a knowingly false tax return and a false amended return for Jane in 2010, the return preparer would be penalized $3000 for Jimmy's three returns but only $1000 for the two filed for Jane.

In finding against the IRS, the Court noted several facts which implied that, even though Carlson prepared tax returns as her job for Jackson Hewitt, she was unsophisticated in tax matters and was not well educated or particularly well trained.  Rather, she relied mainly on a software program.  Nonetheless, she prepared 200-300 returns in her first year.  In her second year, she was promoted to corporate returns!  (Although the IRS is the loser in this case, it certainly doesn't reflect well on Jackson Hewitt either.  It does serve as a valuable reminder that a big name is no guarantee that the individual preparing your returns is very qualified.  The other big box preparation service, HR Block, on the other hand, if I recall right, spent a great deal of its advertising last year on how experienced some of its preparers were, perhaps trying to fight this perception.)

Her boss at JH was arrested in 2006 for drug and money laundering charges.  (Wow!)  The IRS later investigated the preparation business, at which time Carlson stopped working there, but had prepared more than a thousand returns during her tenure.  The IRS penalized her for 40 of those returns, she paid 15% down and sued in district court for a refund (which is unique to certain penalties).  The DOJ saw fit to defend only 27 of those 40 in a jury trial.

As you can see, Carlson is actually fairly sympathetic in this case.  The government's decision to litigate when there was a possible adverse decision on a purely legal issue was a hazardous one.  There is a saying in litigation that "bad facts make bad law."  If the DOJ was trying to avoid making bad law, this may have been the wrong case to push.

Contrary to the government’s argument, Section 6701, even though it doesn't use the word "fraud,"requires proof of fraud before penalties can be imposed.  Essentially, knowledge that a false item would make a false refund is fraud.

The case was remanded for a whole new trial.  The appeals court held the government was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual had actual knowledge that the returns she prepared for others contained an understatement of tax.  Thus, the instruction to the jury on the lower standard of proof was improper.  In a full sweep for the return preparer, the appeals court found the government's case wanting under any standard.  There was simply insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that a tax preparer was liable for penalties under Section 6701.

 Further, government presented no evidence that the preparer knew that twelve of the returns understated the correct tax. The government was required to show that the preparer knew that the returns were fraudulent; it was insufficient for the government to show only that the returns contained errors.

In contrast, the preparer presented substantial evidence that she did not know the returns she prepared understated the correct tax. Moreover, the simple fact that many of the preparer's customers either failed to substantiate their deductions during the audit or were not cooperative during the IRS's later audit was not evidence that those clients had not presented substantiation to the preparer (or misled the preparer) at the time the returns were prepared.  A jury could not reasonably infer that the preparer knew the returns contained understatements based only on those clients' conduct during audits.

This case represents a major "win" legal victory for this particular return preparer and a terrible defeat for the government.  However, the "win" is not that great if you consider the public shame the IRS has brought on the return preparer and Jackson Hewitt and the likely loss of business it may have caused her practice.  Hopefully, this case gives enough guidance to prevent similar cases from being pushed forward by the DOJ and IRS unnecessarily.

The Wilson Tax Law Group has extensive experience in return preparer penalties and criminal defense of tax return preparers. Please feel free to contact our firm with any inquiries on similar issues or any other tax problems.

IRS Suffers Defeat in Appeals Court as Jury's Finding of Return Preparer Penalty Reversed

The IRS suffered a major defeat last week in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Carlson v. United States, Case No. 12-13736 (June 13, 2014), as the appellate court reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part a decision from a Florida district court holding a tax preparer liable for penalties under Code Section 6701.  The eleventh circuit held that the burden of proof was not the usual minimum of a "preponderance of the evidence" (sometimes described as "more likely than not") but the higher "clear and convincing evidence" usually applied in civil fraud cases.  (Note: the clear/convincing standard is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.)  Appellant, Frances Carlson, was a return preparer for Jackson Hewitt tax services.

Section 6701(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C., provides for a penalty to be imposed on any person:

(1) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document,

(2) who knows (or has reason to believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws, and

(3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person.

Under IRS Section 6701(b), the penalty is $1000 for essentially every return that the tax preparer knew was claiming a false understatement of tax, but the penalty is limited to one imposition for each year involving a particular taxpayer. For example, if a return preparer prepares knowingly false returns for Jimmy in 2010, 2011, and 2012,  and a knowingly false tax return and a false amended return for Jane in 2010, the return preparer would be penalized $3000 for Jimmy's three returns but only $1000 for the two filed for Jane.

In finding against the IRS, the Court noted several facts which implied that, even though Carlson prepared tax returns as her job for Jackson Hewitt, she was unsophisticated in tax matters and was not well educated or particularly well trained.  Rather, she relied mainly on a software program.  Nonetheless, she prepared 200-300 returns in her first year.  In her second year, she was promoted to corporate returns!  (Although the IRS is the loser in this case, it certainly doesn't reflect well on Jackson Hewitt either.  It does serve as a valuable reminder that a big name is no guarantee that the individual preparing your returns is very qualified.  The other big box preparation service, HR Block, on the other hand, if I recall right, spent a great deal of its advertising last year on how experienced some of its preparers were, perhaps trying to fight this perception.)

Her boss at JH was arrested in 2006 for drug and money laundering charges.  (Wow!)  The IRS later investigated the preparation business, at which time Carlson stopped working there, but had prepared more than a thousand returns during her tenure.  The IRS penalized her for 40 of those returns, she paid 15% down and sued in district court for a refund (which is unique to certain penalties).  The DOJ saw fit to defend only 27 of those 40 in a jury trial.

As you can see, Carlson is actually fairly sympathetic in this case.  The government's decision to litigate when there was a possible adverse decision on a purely legal issue was a hazardous one.  There is a saying in litigation that "bad facts make bad law."  If the DOJ was trying to avoid making bad law, this may have been the wrong case to push.

Contrary to the government’s argument, Section 6701, even though it doesn't use the word "fraud,"requires proof of fraud before penalties can be imposed.  Essentially, knowledge that a false item would make a false refund is fraud.

The case was remanded for a whole new trial.  The appeals court held the government was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual had actual knowledge that the returns she prepared for others contained an understatement of tax.  Thus, the instruction to the jury on the lower standard of proof was improper.  In a full sweep for the return preparer, the appeals court found the government's case wanting under any standard.  There was simply insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that a tax preparer was liable for penalties under Section 6701.

 Further, government presented no evidence that the preparer knew that twelve of the returns understated the correct tax. The government was required to show that the preparer knew that the returns were fraudulent; it was insufficient for the government to show only that the returns contained errors.

In contrast, the preparer presented substantial evidence that she did not know the returns she prepared understated the correct tax. Moreover, the simple fact that many of the preparer's customers either failed to substantiate their deductions during the audit or were not cooperative during the IRS's later audit was not evidence that those clients had not presented substantiation to the preparer (or misled the preparer) at the time the returns were prepared.  A jury could not reasonably infer that the preparer knew the returns contained understatements based only on those clients' conduct during audits.

This case represents a major "win" legal victory for this particular return preparer and a terrible defeat for the government.  However, the "win" is not that great if you consider the public shame the IRS has brought on the return preparer and Jackson Hewitt and the likely loss of business it may have caused her practice.  Hopefully, this case gives enough guidance to prevent similar cases from being pushed forward by the DOJ and IRS unnecessarily.

The Wilson Tax Law Group has extensive experience in return preparer penalties and criminal defense of tax return preparers. Please feel free to contact our firm with any inquiries on similar issues or any other tax problems.

IRS Increases the FBAR Penalty for People with Offshore Accounts

In efforts to increase offshore tax compliance, the IRS just made brand new changes to its current offshore disclosure programs. 

The streamlined procedures have been expanded to accommodate a wider group of U.S. taxpayers who have unreported foreign financial accounts.  This is a very good thing because now more people can use the procedures than could have before.

The original streamlined procedures announced in 2012 were available only to non-resident, non-filers. Taxpayer submissions were subject to different degrees of review based on the amount of the tax due and the taxpayer’s response to a “risk” questionnaire.

The expanded streamlined procedures are available to a wider population of U.S. taxpayers living outside the country and, for the first time, to certain U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States. The changes include:

 • Eliminating a requirement that the taxpayer have $1,500 or less of unpaid tax per year;

 •  Eliminating the required risk questionnaire;

 •  Requiring the taxpayer to certify that previous failures to comply were due to non-willful conduct.

For eligible U.S. taxpayers residing outside the United States, all penalties will be waived. For eligible U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States, the only penalty will be a miscellaneous offshore penalty equal to 5 percent of the foreign financial assets that gave rise to the tax compliance issue.

 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) Modified: The changes announced today also make important modifications to the OVDP. The changes include:

 •  Requiring additional information from taxpayers applying to the program;

 •  Eliminating the existing reduced penalty percentage for certain non-willful taxpayers in light of the expansion of the streamlined procedures;

  •  Requiring taxpayers to submit all account statements and pay the offshore penalty at the time of the OVDP application;

 • Enabling taxpayers to submit voluminous records electronically rather than on paper;

 • Increasing the offshore penalty percentage (from 27.5% to 50%) if, before the taxpayer’s OVDP pre-clearance request is submitted, it becomes public that a financial institution where the taxpayer holds an account or another party facilitating the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement is under investigation by the IRS or Department of Justice.

I will add more in a later post.  You can find the news release here.   Please contact the Wilson Tax Law Group if you have questions about offshore bank account disclosures or FBAR matters under the July 1, 2014 or transitional procedures.  We have handled numerous offshore cases.

Update:  The IRS has published FAQ's for the Transition Rules drawing a clear line as to who can qualify for the pre-July 1, 2014 penalty rates.

Q: What if I made a request for OVDP pre-clearance before July 1, 2014, but not a full voluntary disclosure? 

A: A taxpayer will not be considered to be currently participating in OVDP for purposes of receiving transitional treatment unless, as of July 1, 2014, he has mailed to IRS Criminal Investigation his voluntary disclosure letter and attachments as described in OVDP FAQ 24.  Thus, a taxpayer who makes an offshore voluntary disclosure as outlined in FAQ 24 on or after July 1, 2014 will not be eligible for transitional treatment under OVDP, even though he may have made a request for OVDP pre-clearance before July 1, 2014.

These transitional FAQs can be found here.

The FAQ for the effective-July 1, 2014 OVDP can be found here.

 

IRS Increases the FBAR Penalty for People with Offshore Accounts

In efforts to increase offshore tax compliance, the IRS just made brand new changes to its current offshore disclosure programs. 

The streamlined procedures have been expanded to accommodate a wider group of U.S. taxpayers who have unreported foreign financial accounts.  This is a very good thing because now more people can use the procedures than could have before.

The original streamlined procedures announced in 2012 were available only to non-resident, non-filers. Taxpayer submissions were subject to different degrees of review based on the amount of the tax due and the taxpayer’s response to a “risk” questionnaire.

The expanded streamlined procedures are available to a wider population of U.S. taxpayers living outside the country and, for the first time, to certain U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States. The changes include:

 • Eliminating a requirement that the taxpayer have $1,500 or less of unpaid tax per year;

 •  Eliminating the required risk questionnaire;

 •  Requiring the taxpayer to certify that previous failures to comply were due to non-willful conduct.

For eligible U.S. taxpayers residing outside the United States, all penalties will be waived. For eligible U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States, the only penalty will be a miscellaneous offshore penalty equal to 5 percent of the foreign financial assets that gave rise to the tax compliance issue.

 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) Modified: The changes announced today also make important modifications to the OVDP. The changes include:

 •  Requiring additional information from taxpayers applying to the program;

 •  Eliminating the existing reduced penalty percentage for certain non-willful taxpayers in light of the expansion of the streamlined procedures;

  •  Requiring taxpayers to submit all account statements and pay the offshore penalty at the time of the OVDP application;

 • Enabling taxpayers to submit voluminous records electronically rather than on paper;

 • Increasing the offshore penalty percentage (from 27.5% to 50%) if, before the taxpayer’s OVDP pre-clearance request is submitted, it becomes public that a financial institution where the taxpayer holds an account or another party facilitating the taxpayer’s offshore arrangement is under investigation by the IRS or Department of Justice.

I will add more in a later post.  You can find the news release here.   Please contact the Wilson Tax Law Group if you have questions about offshore bank account disclosures or FBAR matters under the July 1, 2014 or transitional procedures.  We have handled numerous offshore cases.

Update:  The IRS has published FAQ's for the Transition Rules drawing a clear line as to who can qualify for the pre-July 1, 2014 penalty rates.

Q: What if I made a request for OVDP pre-clearance before July 1, 2014, but not a full voluntary disclosure? 

A: A taxpayer will not be considered to be currently participating in OVDP for purposes of receiving transitional treatment unless, as of July 1, 2014, he has mailed to IRS Criminal Investigation his voluntary disclosure letter and attachments as described in OVDP FAQ 24.  Thus, a taxpayer who makes an offshore voluntary disclosure as outlined in FAQ 24 on or after July 1, 2014 will not be eligible for transitional treatment under OVDP, even though he may have made a request for OVDP pre-clearance before July 1, 2014.

These transitional FAQs can be found here.

The FAQ for the effective-July 1, 2014 OVDP can be found here.

 

Tax Problems Facing Marijuana Dispensaries, This Time From the City of Los Angeles

The LA times published an interesting article about marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles.  The article focuses on the interesting fact that as Los Angeles tries to clamp down on the number of marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles by making them follow Proposition D requirements, more than 450 medical marijuana shops filed business tax renewals with the Office of Finance.  This number is more than three times as many stores than what is estimated to be allowed to stay open.  So while local lawmakers are troubled by the number of medical marijuana shops that still exist in Los Angeles, the Office of Finance has no problem cashing in on all the taxes being collected from them.  The article states that Los Angeles collected roughly $2.1 million from medical marijuana tax renewals this year, an Office of Finance staffer told a City Council committee Monday.

The interesting thing about this article is that City Council is upset that these people are paying business taxes because now the City cannot use tax evasion statutes as a method to shut them down.   It seems to me that these people are trying to comply with the tax code so whether or not they comply with Proposition D is not the tax-collecting agencies' business.   The City is so upset at all the business tax renewals, but has no problem collecting the roughly $2.1 million in revenues from medical marijuana shops.  Nor should they have any problem with it - Council members would be forfeiting their jobs if they took the position that the illegal businesses should be issued refunds.

In reality, the juxtaposition between collecting taxes from someone while turning a blind eye to the source of the money is hardly a new story.  This happens every time the IRS comes in to count the drug money after the DEA makes a big bust.  Even illegal businesses have to pay taxes.  Nonetheless, you don't usually see the opposite scenario - e.g., the DEA swooping in after the IRS audits a tax return - as the City Council members seem to support here.   The sharing of tax information between taxing and law enforcement agencies is usually a one-way street.  In non-tax cases, the Federal tax privacy law, IRC Section 6103(i)(1), provides that the IRS can share return information with another federal investigative agency only with a court order.

The government relies on taxes to operate and it would inhibit people from filing true tax returns if they thought that the information would be made public or would be shared with other government agencies.  The privacy of tax return information was also a qualified privilege under Federal common law before Congress enacted Section 6103.  In this situation, it would behoove whoever is advocating and lobbying on behalf of the dispensaries to not only be familiar with the medical marijuana laws and business laws, but also tax law and policy.

As an attorney who understands criminal law and tax law, I can tell you that medical marijuana dispensaries get no breaks that other businesses get under the state tax code.  They are treated as illegal drug trafficking activities under the California Revenue and Taxation Code. So what does this mean? 

It means both the Feds and California will disallow all the business expenses of a marijuana dispensary that a normal business is entitled to deduct.  As a result, marijuana dispensaries will be taxed on their gross receipts for income tax purposes. California's tax code is basically "monkey see, monkey do," adopting the Federal tax code almost rule for rule.  Under Federal law, if a business violated public policy or is illegal, then it cannot take advantage of deductions or credits under the tax code.  Because federal tax law deems these activities as illegal drug trafficking activities, so does California.  These rules are completely screwed up because they encourage these types of businesses to operate under the radar for tax purposes.   Fortunately, it is not an entirely slam dunk case for the tax authorities because there are some legitimate tax "loopholes."  There are ways to operate so as to legitimately minimize these tax burdens.

Much of this is covered in a recent article I wrote on the Taxation Of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.  I suggest any marijuana dispensary contact an experienced tax attorney who knows the marijuana dispensary tax rules inside and out.  There are ways to follow the tax rules and not have to pay taxes on the gross receipts of the dispensary.  Feel free to contact the Wilson Tax Law Group, if you have any questions. Our firm has significant experience addressing tax problems facing marijuana dispensaries.

Tax Problems Facing Marijuana Dispensaries, This Time From the City of Los Angeles

The LA times published an interesting article about marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles.  The article focuses on the interesting fact that as Los Angeles tries to clamp down on the number of marijuana dispensaries operating in Los Angeles by making them follow Proposition D requirements, more than 450 medical marijuana shops filed business tax renewals with the Office of Finance.  This number is more than three times as many stores than what is estimated to be allowed to stay open.  So while local lawmakers are troubled by the number of medical marijuana shops that still exist in Los Angeles, the Office of Finance has no problem cashing in on all the taxes being collected from them.  The article states that Los Angeles collected roughly $2.1 million from medical marijuana tax renewals this year, an Office of Finance staffer told a City Council committee Monday.

The interesting thing about this article is that City Council is upset that these people are paying business taxes because now the City cannot use tax evasion statutes as a method to shut them down.   It seems to me that these people are trying to comply with the tax code so whether or not they comply with Proposition D is not the tax-collecting agencies' business.   The City is so upset at all the business tax renewals, but has no problem collecting the roughly $2.1 million in revenues from medical marijuana shops.  Nor should they have any problem with it - Council members would be forfeiting their jobs if they took the position that the illegal businesses should be issued refunds.

In reality, the juxtaposition between collecting taxes from someone while turning a blind eye to the source of the money is hardly a new story.  This happens every time the IRS comes in to count the drug money after the DEA makes a big bust.  Even illegal businesses have to pay taxes.  Nonetheless, you don't usually see the opposite scenario - e.g., the DEA swooping in after the IRS audits a tax return - as the City Council members seem to support here.   The sharing of tax information between taxing and law enforcement agencies is usually a one-way street.  In non-tax cases, the Federal tax privacy law, IRC Section 6103(i)(1), provides that the IRS can share return information with another federal investigative agency only with a court order.

The government relies on taxes to operate and it would inhibit people from filing true tax returns if they thought that the information would be made public or would be shared with other government agencies.  The privacy of tax return information was also a qualified privilege under Federal common law before Congress enacted Section 6103.  In this situation, it would behoove whoever is advocating and lobbying on behalf of the dispensaries to not only be familiar with the medical marijuana laws and business laws, but also tax law and policy.

As an attorney who understands criminal law and tax law, I can tell you that medical marijuana dispensaries get no breaks that other businesses get under the state tax code.  They are treated as illegal drug trafficking activities under the California Revenue and Taxation Code. So what does this mean? 

It means both the Feds and California will disallow all the business expenses of a marijuana dispensary that a normal business is entitled to deduct.  As a result, marijuana dispensaries will be taxed on their gross receipts for income tax purposes. California's tax code is basically "monkey see, monkey do," adopting the Federal tax code almost rule for rule.  Under Federal law, if a business violated public policy or is illegal, then it cannot take advantage of deductions or credits under the tax code.  Because federal tax law deems these activities as illegal drug trafficking activities, so does California.  These rules are completely screwed up because they encourage these types of businesses to operate under the radar for tax purposes.   Fortunately, it is not an entirely slam dunk case for the tax authorities because there are some legitimate tax "loopholes."  There are ways to operate so as to legitimately minimize these tax burdens.

Much of this is covered in a recent article I wrote on the Taxation Of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.  I suggest any marijuana dispensary contact an experienced tax attorney who knows the marijuana dispensary tax rules inside and out.  There are ways to follow the tax rules and not have to pay taxes on the gross receipts of the dispensary.  Feel free to contact the Wilson Tax Law Group, if you have any questions. Our firm has significant experience addressing tax problems facing marijuana dispensaries.

IRS (Probably) Spent More Money than Tax Owed in Symbolic Tax Court Victory

Symbolic of what?  I'll leave that to you.  From a Tax Court opinion released earlier this week, file this under Ridiculous Things the IRS Does:

Taxpayers filed a perfectly correct return listing their taxable social security income on the correct line.  IRS received the return and, using its big brain, decided the social security income was nontaxable, recalculates the tax, and issued the taxpayers an additional $548 refund.  Somehow, the IRS later realized the taxpayers were right and they shouldn't have sent the extra dollar bills, so they audited the couple and demanded they repay the $548.  When the couple declined, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, on which the couple appealed to the tax court.  Somehow, probably driven by the couple's righteous indignation, the case went all the way to trial, where it was decided in a judicial opinion.  The taxpayers argued they shouldn't have to pay for the IRS's mistake, but the court found in favor of the government.

Granted, the taxpayers were technically in the wrong under the law - a "rebate refund" can be reclaimed by the IRS through examination procedures.  Also, "easy come, easy go" should prevail here.

But the real losers here are the American taxpayers.  Someone in the IRS decided it would be worthwhile to take this thing all the way, over a few measly dollars, and issue a notice of deficiency, giving appeal rights - a ticket to the Tax Court - to these taxpayers.  Hours of some IRS auditor's time dealing with these taxpayers, hours of time spent by paralegals, secretaries, and attorneys at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to prepare and try the case, and hours spent by the judge, his/her staff, and the judicial clerk to arrive at this opinion. (And don't forget the cost of gas to Tax Court for the IRS Attorney, mailing costs for pleadings, and the cost of flying the judge to Texas and setting him/her up in a hotel to try the case.) Chances this cost the government and, by extension, the American people, far more than its worth are pretty high.  The full opinion can be found here.

Posted by our Newport Coast Tax Attorney at wilsontaxlaw.com.

IRS (Probably) Spent More Money than Tax Owed in Symbolic Tax Court Victory

Symbolic of what?  I'll leave that to you.  From a Tax Court opinion released earlier this week, file this under Ridiculous Things the IRS Does:

Taxpayers filed a perfectly correct return listing their taxable social security income on the correct line.  IRS received the return and, using its big brain, decided the social security income was nontaxable, recalculates the tax, and issued the taxpayers an additional $548 refund.  Somehow, the IRS later realized the taxpayers were right and they shouldn't have sent the extra dollar bills, so they audited the couple and demanded they repay the $548.  When the couple declined, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency, on which the couple appealed to the tax court.  Somehow, probably driven by the couple's righteous indignation, the case went all the way to trial, where it was decided in a judicial opinion.  The taxpayers argued they shouldn't have to pay for the IRS's mistake, but the court found in favor of the government.

Granted, the taxpayers were technically in the wrong under the law - a "rebate refund" can be reclaimed by the IRS through examination procedures.  Also, "easy come, easy go" should prevail here.

But the real losers here are the American taxpayers.  Someone in the IRS decided it would be worthwhile to take this thing all the way, over a few measly dollars, and issue a notice of deficiency, giving appeal rights - a ticket to the Tax Court - to these taxpayers.  Hours of some IRS auditor's time dealing with these taxpayers, hours of time spent by paralegals, secretaries, and attorneys at the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to prepare and try the case, and hours spent by the judge, his/her staff, and the judicial clerk to arrive at this opinion. (And don't forget the cost of gas to Tax Court for the IRS Attorney, mailing costs for pleadings, and the cost of flying the judge to Texas and setting him/her up in a hotel to try the case.) Chances this cost the government and, by extension, the American people, far more than its worth are pretty high.  The full opinion can be found here.

Posted by our Newport Coast Tax Attorney at wilsontaxlaw.com.

Tax Court Draws Bright Line in Completed Contract Method of Accounting Cases

What the Tax Court gives with one hand, it can take away with the other.

That's the lesson one can learn from the pair of cases issued this year dealing with the completed contract method of accounting (CCM).  The Tax Court's opinion in Shea Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. No.3 (2014) was a great win for large-scale home developers like Shea Homes whose contracts to build and develop entire communities can take several years to complete.  The IRS had taken the unfortunate position that Shea Homes' contracts were not long term contracts and that the infrastructure improvements to the roads and building community areas were not included in determining when the contract was completed - which would have forced Shea Homes to recognize all of its income before knowing how much it would ultimately have in expenses.  It was a resounding victory for Shea Homes, though, as the Tax Court found that they were long term home-construction contracts and the contracts were not completed in earlier years when the contracts closed escrow.  The Tax Court relied on the facts that the community areas and the infrastructure were part of their contracts with the ultimate home purchasers and held that those costs were properly included in the tests to determine whether the CCM could be used and when the contracts were completed.  A broad reading of that opinion could have been used to support the proposition that builders who only did infrastructure and community improvements could also use the CCM.

That is, until the Tax Court issued its recent opinion in Howard Hughes Company, LLC v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. No. 20 (2014).  In what appeared to be less of a sequel and more of a two-part movie, the Tax Court drew a bright line to exclude builders who build infrastructure and community areas, but don't also construct homes, from the test.  The Tax Court made no bones about it, saying:

"Our Opinion today draws a bright line.  A taxpayer's contract can qualify as a home construction contract only if the taxpayer builds... or installs integral components to dwelling units... .  It is not enough for the taxpayer to merely pave the road leading to the home, though that may be necessary to the ultimate sale and use of a home."

While there is some logic to the Tax Court's opinion, a plain reading of the regulations and the statute don't give this tax attorney the sense that they are so narrow.  Especially in light of the proposed regulations which would broaden the costs that can be included.  Proposed Income Tax Regs., 73 Fed. Reg. 45182 (Aug. 4, 2008) (I don't buy the idea that the IRS can, on the one hand, issue regulations but, on the other hand, say that the regulation is not supported by the terms of the statute.  Chevron, anyone?  Separation of powers?).  I think we can expect the taxpayers in Hughes to appeal, so there will certainly be more to the story.  Stay posted.

If you are in need of an attorney on this or any other tax issue, you can contact our Newport Beach Tax Lawyer at wilsontaxlaw.com